calebmuchungu
23rd May 2006, 12:45
By Caleb Muchungu
African governments, eager to please Washington and intent to crush internal dissent, are using Bush’s policies on terror to commit serious human rights violations. Analysts say that the so-called war on terror has brought about some of the worst human rights abuses in Africa since the end of the cold war.
Governments can now round up suspects at will and claim that they are terrorists in the hope of being seen as champions of war against terror, hence increased flow of dollars from the US - or simply to silence critics. Strategic nations in Africa have taken advantage of Washington’s fears to attract funding and to crush dissent at home. The horn of Africa, for instance, has become a focus for the US. Ethiopia, which is in this region, continues to blatantly abuse human rights of its people with impunity. In June last year Ethiopian security forces opened fire on crowds protesting the outcome of disputed elections, killing at least 22 people. Following the protests Ethiopia has detained opposition leaders, students, human rights activists and even journalists. Although the US has protested the violence, observers feel that this has not been forceful enough – probably because it does not wish to antagonise an ally in the region.
The US considers the Horn of Africa highly strategic and has a military presence in a number of countries, including the tiny nation of Djibouti, a strategic point in the control of the Red Sea. In what is seen as pressure from the US, Djibouti decided to expel over 100,000 illegal migrants in July 2003. The US had expressed concern that al Qaeda members could be operating in Djibouti. The US, Germany, France and Spain have a heavy military presence in Djibouti, which has become the headquarters of the war on terror in the region.
Across the continent, in the northwest, Mauritania has been cracking down on Islamists under the guise of pursuing terrorists, says the International Crisis Group (ICG). In April 2005, Mauritania rounded up several people, including key Islamic leaders. Amnesty International (AI) has documented that torture of government critics is rife in Mauritania. According to the AFP, Washington's response to terror threats in the Sahel nations was to develop the Pan-Sahel initiative in 2002, which provides training in border protection, population tracking and regional cooperation to the under-funded militaries of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad.
As far back as 2001 Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that some African countries, such as Egypt and Algeria, were using the war on terror to crush dissent. Egypt and Algeria are known for their inhuman treatment of critics. Torture is a commonly employed method by security forces in both countries to crush dissent. The US and Britain have in the past criticised Algeria for using torture against critics and were not supplying arms to the country between 1992 and 2001 following cancellation of elections in 1992 and subsequent violence. However, this changed with the September 11 attacks. The US is now supplying military equipment and other resources to Algerian forces.
Following the September 11 bombing, the US has pushed African states to enact anti-terrorism legislation. Some African countries have already hastily enacted such legislation. Human rights groups have described some of the laws as draconian. Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa are some of the countries south of the Sahara that have enacted anti-terrorism laws. Whereas South Africa has come up with sensible legislation, in the other countries the laws clearly infringe on civil liberties and human rights. In Uganda, the law provides for death for people convicted of terrorism. Embattled Ugandan leader, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has not hesitated to use the legislation in his favour. In January 2004, two Ugandan journalists Andrew Mwenda and Wanyama Wangah of The Monitor, were dragged to the courts under the new anti terror laws and accused of being rebel collaborators. Maj Shaban Bantariza, spokesman of the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF), said the journalists were rebels because their telephone numbers were found on the body of an LRA commander who was killed by UPDF forces in northern Uganda. Had the two been convicted, they would have faced the death sentence. The Ugandan Parliament adopted the Anti Terrorism Bill In March 2002. The regime of President Museveni is known for its poor human rights record. But it still attracts major funding from the US and Britain. Museveni is considered a key ally of Western interests in the region.
The South Africa anti terrorism bill underwent substantial changes after protests from various groups including the powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). Controversial clauses removed included detention without trial and banning of organisations. The bill allows cordoning off of areas, and for searches on vehicles and people only with the sanction of a judge.
Human rights groups, civil society movements and religious groups have opposed anti-terror legislation pushed in by the US. They argue that such laws tear at the very fabric of democracy and human rights. In February 2004, over 50 church groups meeting in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, expressed concern over the laws. The religious groups, under the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC) expressed fear that governments would resort to harassing citizens under the guise of curbing terrorism. The powers that the security forces will yield will interfere with democratic process and civil liberties, they argued.
Even as the churches were voicing their concerns, 43 human rights groups were also meeting in Kenya to oppose the introduction of the Suppression of Terrorism Bill 2003. The previous year, the US had put up a 100 million dollar initiative for suppression of terrorism in East Africa. Although the Kenya anti-terrorism bill was rejected in 2003 many critics argue that it is just a matter of time before it resurfaces. The bill makes it criminal wearing of clothes and any items “associated” with terror groups. The bill also gives police sweeping powers to search people and premises without a warrant and to keep them incommunicado and without legal representation during interrogation. Britain, Israel and the US are still pressing Kenya to enact an anti-terror Act. "I think Kenya acknowledges that the current legislation is less than adequate," British Deputy High Commissioner to Kenya, Ray Kyles is quoted saying last year.
But even without the powers of new terrorism laws at their behest, African governments are still using existing legislation and even flouting laws with impunity in the guise of cracking down on terror. For instance, after the bombing of an Israeli owned hotel in Kenya in November 2002, the government followed in fast and arrested four suspects. Amnesty International accused the government of torturing the suspects and keeping them in filthy and inhuman like conditions. The suspects were kept away from their lawyers and families. The suspects told Amnesty that they were interrogated by Kenyan and foreign security agents. One of the suspects, Mohammed Surur, said that foreign agents administered electric shocks on him until he passed out. The suspects were brought in and out of court in a spectacular show of might during the hearings – with red bereted para-military officers waving automatic guns in jeeps with full lights on, screaming sirens and cordoning off of the court premises – apparently to please the US. The suspects have since been acquitted for lack of evidence.
Caleb Muchungu is a career journalist who has worked as a staff features writer for Kenya’s second largest daily national newspaper, The East African Standard, for over five years. He has also worked as a communication officer in Tanzania and Kenya and has been the Editor of Mtetezi, a human rights journal in Nairobi. He is currently a communications officer in Malawi.
African governments, eager to please Washington and intent to crush internal dissent, are using Bush’s policies on terror to commit serious human rights violations. Analysts say that the so-called war on terror has brought about some of the worst human rights abuses in Africa since the end of the cold war.
Governments can now round up suspects at will and claim that they are terrorists in the hope of being seen as champions of war against terror, hence increased flow of dollars from the US - or simply to silence critics. Strategic nations in Africa have taken advantage of Washington’s fears to attract funding and to crush dissent at home. The horn of Africa, for instance, has become a focus for the US. Ethiopia, which is in this region, continues to blatantly abuse human rights of its people with impunity. In June last year Ethiopian security forces opened fire on crowds protesting the outcome of disputed elections, killing at least 22 people. Following the protests Ethiopia has detained opposition leaders, students, human rights activists and even journalists. Although the US has protested the violence, observers feel that this has not been forceful enough – probably because it does not wish to antagonise an ally in the region.
The US considers the Horn of Africa highly strategic and has a military presence in a number of countries, including the tiny nation of Djibouti, a strategic point in the control of the Red Sea. In what is seen as pressure from the US, Djibouti decided to expel over 100,000 illegal migrants in July 2003. The US had expressed concern that al Qaeda members could be operating in Djibouti. The US, Germany, France and Spain have a heavy military presence in Djibouti, which has become the headquarters of the war on terror in the region.
Across the continent, in the northwest, Mauritania has been cracking down on Islamists under the guise of pursuing terrorists, says the International Crisis Group (ICG). In April 2005, Mauritania rounded up several people, including key Islamic leaders. Amnesty International (AI) has documented that torture of government critics is rife in Mauritania. According to the AFP, Washington's response to terror threats in the Sahel nations was to develop the Pan-Sahel initiative in 2002, which provides training in border protection, population tracking and regional cooperation to the under-funded militaries of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad.
As far back as 2001 Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that some African countries, such as Egypt and Algeria, were using the war on terror to crush dissent. Egypt and Algeria are known for their inhuman treatment of critics. Torture is a commonly employed method by security forces in both countries to crush dissent. The US and Britain have in the past criticised Algeria for using torture against critics and were not supplying arms to the country between 1992 and 2001 following cancellation of elections in 1992 and subsequent violence. However, this changed with the September 11 attacks. The US is now supplying military equipment and other resources to Algerian forces.
Following the September 11 bombing, the US has pushed African states to enact anti-terrorism legislation. Some African countries have already hastily enacted such legislation. Human rights groups have described some of the laws as draconian. Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa are some of the countries south of the Sahara that have enacted anti-terrorism laws. Whereas South Africa has come up with sensible legislation, in the other countries the laws clearly infringe on civil liberties and human rights. In Uganda, the law provides for death for people convicted of terrorism. Embattled Ugandan leader, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has not hesitated to use the legislation in his favour. In January 2004, two Ugandan journalists Andrew Mwenda and Wanyama Wangah of The Monitor, were dragged to the courts under the new anti terror laws and accused of being rebel collaborators. Maj Shaban Bantariza, spokesman of the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF), said the journalists were rebels because their telephone numbers were found on the body of an LRA commander who was killed by UPDF forces in northern Uganda. Had the two been convicted, they would have faced the death sentence. The Ugandan Parliament adopted the Anti Terrorism Bill In March 2002. The regime of President Museveni is known for its poor human rights record. But it still attracts major funding from the US and Britain. Museveni is considered a key ally of Western interests in the region.
The South Africa anti terrorism bill underwent substantial changes after protests from various groups including the powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). Controversial clauses removed included detention without trial and banning of organisations. The bill allows cordoning off of areas, and for searches on vehicles and people only with the sanction of a judge.
Human rights groups, civil society movements and religious groups have opposed anti-terror legislation pushed in by the US. They argue that such laws tear at the very fabric of democracy and human rights. In February 2004, over 50 church groups meeting in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, expressed concern over the laws. The religious groups, under the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC) expressed fear that governments would resort to harassing citizens under the guise of curbing terrorism. The powers that the security forces will yield will interfere with democratic process and civil liberties, they argued.
Even as the churches were voicing their concerns, 43 human rights groups were also meeting in Kenya to oppose the introduction of the Suppression of Terrorism Bill 2003. The previous year, the US had put up a 100 million dollar initiative for suppression of terrorism in East Africa. Although the Kenya anti-terrorism bill was rejected in 2003 many critics argue that it is just a matter of time before it resurfaces. The bill makes it criminal wearing of clothes and any items “associated” with terror groups. The bill also gives police sweeping powers to search people and premises without a warrant and to keep them incommunicado and without legal representation during interrogation. Britain, Israel and the US are still pressing Kenya to enact an anti-terror Act. "I think Kenya acknowledges that the current legislation is less than adequate," British Deputy High Commissioner to Kenya, Ray Kyles is quoted saying last year.
But even without the powers of new terrorism laws at their behest, African governments are still using existing legislation and even flouting laws with impunity in the guise of cracking down on terror. For instance, after the bombing of an Israeli owned hotel in Kenya in November 2002, the government followed in fast and arrested four suspects. Amnesty International accused the government of torturing the suspects and keeping them in filthy and inhuman like conditions. The suspects were kept away from their lawyers and families. The suspects told Amnesty that they were interrogated by Kenyan and foreign security agents. One of the suspects, Mohammed Surur, said that foreign agents administered electric shocks on him until he passed out. The suspects were brought in and out of court in a spectacular show of might during the hearings – with red bereted para-military officers waving automatic guns in jeeps with full lights on, screaming sirens and cordoning off of the court premises – apparently to please the US. The suspects have since been acquitted for lack of evidence.
Caleb Muchungu is a career journalist who has worked as a staff features writer for Kenya’s second largest daily national newspaper, The East African Standard, for over five years. He has also worked as a communication officer in Tanzania and Kenya and has been the Editor of Mtetezi, a human rights journal in Nairobi. He is currently a communications officer in Malawi.